Over a month after the election, and in response to now new evidence uncovered, the CIA claimed to find evidence of Russian influence in the U.S. election. Even the Washington Post, which broke the story, notes as much.
The Post article admits there is no hard intelligence that ties alleged Russian hacking to orders from Moscow. The conclusions of the CIA analysts appear to be based on a kind of gestalt that combines allegations about Russian hackers, WikiLeaks, and past Russian intelligence use of “middlemen” to hide involvement in intelligence operations.
The FBI is in dispute with the CIA’s claims too, claiming themselves that there’s no evidence for what the CIA claims. So whose right?
As Liberty Writers News reported:
Today the head of the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI), who oversees the CIA, FBI, NSA, and all the other intelligence agencies, said he does NOT support the claims the CIA made about Russia.
A spokesperson from his office said,
“ODNI is not arguing that the agency (CIA) is wrong, only that they can’t prove intent.”
Wait, but isn’t the American legal system principled on “innocent until proven guilty”? Well, no proof of intent sounds like no proof to me.
This report comes almost immediately after the FBI released their own findings which also disputed the CIA’s, saying that the case and evidence used by the CIA would NOT hold up in court.
Meanwhile, here’s Obama’s comments on alleged Russian hacking, claiming it’s the consensus of all intelligence agencies that the Russians were responsible for the hacking of the DNC.
Well, not ALL of them, apparently.
Obama and other liberals are demanding a review of the evidence, and we should all welcome it. Jill Stein’s “Recount 2016” campaign allowed Hillary Clinton to make history twice in becoming the first U.S. presidential candidate to lose twice, and a review of the evidence of supposed Russian involvement in our election will reveal that it’s liberals pushing fake news everywhere.